The meaning of "when a mistake of fact has affected the judgment" under Article 361-5 (14) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 361-5 (14) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "when a misunderstanding of a fact, which is defined as one of the grounds for appeal, has affected the judgment," means a case which has influenced the order of the judgment by mistake of facts, and a case which has influenced directly or indirectly the evaluation of the elements of a crime.

Article 361-5 subparag. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 94No3899 delivered on June 13, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's claim against the victim's abnormal interest amounting to KRW 12,00,000 and damages for delay thereof are merely nothing more than 12,000,000, based on the evidence of the court below, and held that since the defendant stated the above above above amount in the amount column of the unit value table of the blank space ( KRW 520,000,000) in the above above above amount in spite of the absence of the above claim against the above above above above above above amount, such act was prepared and counterfeited by using a check paper with a signature and seal affixed by the above abnormal part of the scope of the right to supplement the blank. In light of the records, the court below's determination and determination are reasonable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts contrary to

2. On the second ground for appeal

In addition, based on the above facts, the court below rejected the defendant's appeal on the ground that the first instance court's judgment did not constitute "when the defendant misleads the above abnormal party about the fact and affected the conclusion of the judgment" under Article 361-5 subparagraph 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is obvious that the defendant did not have any authority to supplement the above KRW 00,000 by stating that the amount column of the above check was stated as KRW 16,00,000 and there was no room for exercising the supplementary right to supplement the check of this case, and thus, it did not constitute "when the judgment affected the conclusion because there was a mistake of fact" under Article 361-5 subparagraph 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 361-5 subparag. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "when a mistake of fact affects the conclusion of the judgment because it has a provision as one of the reasons for appeal" means a case where a mistake of fact affected the order of the judgment by a mistake of fact, and directly or indirectly affected the assessment of the constituent elements of a crime. As to the criminal facts against the defendant, the first instance court and applicable provisions of the lower court (Article 5, Article 217, and Articles 214 (1) of the Criminal Act) are the same as to the criminal facts of the defendant, and the fact-finding is also related to the circumstance in which the defendant did not have the authority to supplement the above check as KRW 28,00,000 [the difference between the defendant's claim against the above above upper court and the lower court is about KRW 16,00,000 (the first instance court and the above higher court found that the defendant bears the obligation to the above higher court for KRW 16,00,000,000,000 for a fine of this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)